BackgroundUtilization of Antenatal Care (ANC) is very low in Nigeria. Self-reported patient satisfaction may be useful to identify provider- and facility-specific factors that can be improved to increase ANC satisfaction and utilization.MethodsExit interview data collected from ANC users and facility assessment survey data from 534 systematically selected facilities in four northern Nigerian states were used. Associations between patient satisfaction (satisfied, not-satisfied) and patient ratings of the provider’s interactions, care processes, out-of-pocket costs, and quality of facility infrastructure were studied.ResultsOf 1336 mothers, 90% were satisfied with ANC. Patient satisfaction was positively associated with responsive service (prompt, unrushed service, convenient clinic hours and privacy during consultation, AOR 2.42, 95% CI 2.05–2.87), treatment-facilitation (medical care-related provider communication and ease of receiving medicines, AOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.46–2.80), equipment availability (AOR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01–1.21), staff empathy (AOR 1.82, 95% CI 1.03–3.23), non-discriminatory treatment regardless of patient’s socioeconomic status (AOR: 1.87, 95% CI 1.09–3.22), provider assurance (courtesy and patient’s confidence in provider’s competence, AOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.26–1.75), and number of clinical examinations received (AOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10–1.50). ANC satisfaction was negatively impacted by out-of-pocket payment for care (vs. free care, AOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23–0.82).ConclusionsANC satisfaction in Nigeria may be enhanced by improving responsiveness to clients, clinical care quality, ensuring equipment availability, optimizing easy access to medicines, and expanding free ANC services.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5285-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Health system financing presents a challenge in many developing countries. We assessed two reform packages, performance-based financing (PBF) and direct facility financing (DFF), against each other and business-as-usual for maternal and child healthcare (MCH) provision in Nigeria. Methods We sampled 571 facilities (269 in PBF; 302 in DFF) in 52 districts randomly assigned to PBF or DFF, and 215 facilities in 25 observable-matched control districts. PBF facilities received $2 ($1 for operating grants plus $1 for bonuses) for every $1 received by DFF facilities (operating grants alone). Both received autonomy, supervision, and enhanced community engagement, isolating the impact of additional performance-linked facility and health worker payments. Facilities and households with recent pregnancies in facility catchments were surveyed at baseline (2014) and endline (2017). Outcomes were Penta3 immunization, institutional deliveries, modern contraceptive prevalence rate (mCPR), four-plus antenatal care (ANC) visits, insecticide-treated mosquito net (ITN) use by under-fives, and directly observed quality of care (QOC). We estimated difference-in-differences with state fixed effects and clustered standard errors. Results PBF increased institutional deliveries by 10% points over DFF and 7% over business-as-usual (p<0.01). PBF and DFF were more effective than business-as-usual for Penta3 (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively); PBF also for mCPR (p<0.05). Twenty-one of 26 QOC indicators improved in both PBF and DFF relative to business-as-usual (p<0.05). However, except for deliveries, PBF was as or less effective than DFF: Penta3 immunization and ITN use were each 6% less than DFF (p<0.1 for both) and QOC gains were also comparable. Utilization gains come from the middle of the rural wealth distribution (p<0.05). Conclusions Our findings show that both PBF and DFF represent significant improvements over business-as-usual for service provision and quality of care. However, except for institutional delivery, PBF and DFF do not differ from each other despite PBF disbursing $2 for every dollar disbursed by DFF. These findings highlight the importance of direct facility financing and decentralization in improving PHC and suggest potential complementarities between the two approaches in strengthening MCH service delivery. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03890653; May 8, 2017. Retrospectively registered.

Within the last two decades, the Nigerian government has committed to strengthening its primary health care system, through reforms addressing institutional restructuring, deepening decentralized governance, and the incorporation of an alternative health care financing strategy. One of these reforms prescribed the establishment of state primary health care agencies/boards (SPHCDBs) as an integral part of the national health system, with the principal responsibility "for the coordination of planning, budgeting, provision and monitoring of all primary health care services that affect residents of the state." Central to this reform is the integration of primary health care (PHC) governance and management, popularly called primary health care under one roof. Another reform, piloting results-based financing, has been implemented since 2011 in three states under the Nigeria State Health Investment Project. This study assesses the implementation of the Primary Health Care Under One Roof (PHCUOR) policy as part of the broader PHC reforms, with a specific focus on how this policy has been strengthened through the Nigeria State Health Investment Project (NSHIP) in Adamawa, Nasarawa, and Ondo states, documenting the evolution of SPHCDB and PHC service delivery, with a focus on management, accountability, and incentives. The study shows that, in the abovementioned states, significant milestones were achieved in the establishment of the SPHCDB, the strengthening of PHC systems, the improvement of accountability linkages, and an increase in service utilization. The authors therefore argue that integrated PHC systems through SPHCDBs, as enshrined in the PHCUOR guidelines, are a panacea for effective provision of primary health care and a potential game changer for health outcomes, especially when reinforced with a results-based financing approach.

No abstract

Background: Nigeria piloted decentralized facility financing (DFF) and performance-based financing (PBF) programs under the Nigeria State Health Investment Project (NSHIP), funded by the World Bank. It aimed to increase the utilization and quality of MCH services. Although many low-and middle-income countries have launched or piloted DFF and/or PBF like programs and conducted impact evaluation, very few studies related DFF or PBF's impact to its cost. This study evaluates the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of facilities with DFF or PBF compared to comparably funded health facilities without it.Methods: This study used a quasi-experimental research design. Local government areas (LGAs) in the three states under NSHIP were randomly assigned to the PBF group, where health facilities received payments based on their performance, and to the DFF group, where payments were not tied to performance.An additional three states served as the control group without additional funding. Reflecting the health system perspective, incremental financial costs were assessed for program implementation and verification, consumables, and donor supervision. Net effectiveness on coverage and quality were assessed through difference-in-differences calculations between baseline and endline facility and household surveys. The Lives Saved Tool and literature were used to convert statistically significant coverage changes to lives saved and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.Results: Compared to the control group the incremental costs of DFF and PBF were $45.2 million and $87.3 million in 2015 US dollars, respectively. In comparison to the control group, DFF had a major impact on Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) and diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DPT)], increasing their coverage by 13.4% (P<0.001) and 9.7% (P<0.05), respectively while PBF increased the rate of skilled birth attendance (SBA) by 9.1% (P<0.05), and use of modern contraceptives by 5.7% (P<0.05). Overall, the quality of care was also improved under the DFF and PBF when compared to the control group. Compared to the control group, DFF and PBF were estimated to save 756 and 1,679 lives per year respectively, with 17,878 and 39,605 QALYs gained.